Table of Contents
Growing Up in Scotland Screen Time Study: A Flag Only at 15
The Growing Up in Scotland screen time study found no link to difficulties at 5 or 10, but 5+ hours of daily gaming at 15 stood out. What it means for parents.
A study that followed thousands of Scottish children for a decade found no link between screen use and emotional or behavioral difficulties at ages 5 and 10, once family life was taken into account. At 15, one pattern stood out: teens who gamed more than five hours a day had 2.6 times the odds of above-average difficulties compared with teens who gamed less than an hour. That is the core of the new Growing Up in Scotland screen time analysis, published in JAMA Network Open in August 2026. It matters because it is a cohort study, the kind that tracks the same kids over years instead of taking one snapshot, and because it adjusted for family functioning, which many earlier studies skipped. The authors’ conclusion is pointed: guidelines that focus “solely on screen time may have limited impact.” Extreme use is the signal. Ordinary use mostly isn’t.
Key Takeaways
- Among 3,786 children at age 5, 3,126 at 10 and 2,598 at 15, screen use showed no significant link to above-average difficulty scores at 5 or 10 after adjustment.
- At 15, gaming more than five hours a day carried 2.61 times the odds of above-average difficulties, the only screen category that held up after correcting for multiple comparisons.
- Median non-school screen use rose from 2 hours a day at 5 to 3 hours at 10.
- Very heavy use at 5 (more than five hours a day) was linked to more difficulties at 10, but that link faded by 15 and didn’t survive sensitivity checks.
- The study didn’t measure content or context, and its data end in 2020, before some of today’s most popular apps took off.
What the Growing Up in Scotland Screen Time Study Measured
Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) is a national birth cohort, a long-running study that recruits children around birth and checks in with the same families over years. Fiona McQuaid, Valeria Skafida, Ruth McQuillan and Bohee Lee used three waves of GUS data, collected in 2009–10, 2014–15 and 2019–20, for their paper “Screen Use and Emotional, Behavioral, and Social Development in Children,” published in JAMA Network Open.
The exposure was screen use outside school hours. Parents reported it at ages 5 and 10; at 15, teens reported it themselves, broken down by type (gaming, TV and video, social media and messaging).
The outcome was the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a standard parent-completed checklist covering emotional problems, conduct, hyperactivity and peer problems. Those four add up to a “total difficulties score.” A score of 14 or higher counts as above average, a marker of higher risk. The SDQ also has a prosocial score for kindness and helpfulness.
The adjustment is what sets this study apart. The researchers accounted for family functioning and other confounders, factors that could drive both screen use and difficulties. A stressed household might lean on screens and have kids who struggle, without one causing the other.
The Results, Age by Age
According to the News-Medical summary and the paper’s abstract, screen use climbed with age. Median daily non-school use went from 2 hours at 5 to 3 hours at 10. The share using screens three or more hours a day rose from 25% at 5 to 52.4% at 10. Heavy gaming grew fastest: 1.7% of 5-year-olds gamed three or more hours a day, compared with 21.1% of 15-year-olds. At 15, 28.4% spent three or more hours a day on social media and messaging.
At 5 and 10: no significant association between screen use and above-average difficulties after adjustment.
At 15: gaming more than five hours a day was linked to 2.61 times the odds of above-average difficulties compared with less than one hour (95% confidence interval 1.49 to 4.57). After correcting for multiple testing, this was the only screen category that remained significant.
A surprise at 15: one to two hours a day of social media and messaging was associated with lower odds of above-average difficulties (odds ratio 0.57). The authors cautioned against reading this as protective.
Over time: more than five hours a day at age 5 was linked to 2.68 times the odds of above-average difficulties at 10. That link disappeared by 15 and wasn’t consistently reproduced when the researchers changed thresholds, used quartiles or reweighted the data.
Prosocial scores: the abstract reports no associations.
Why Heavy Gaming at 15 Stood Out
The study can’t say why, and there are two very different readings.
Displacement. Five-plus hours of gaming a day is a lot of time not spent sleeping, moving, studying or seeing friends in person. Heavy use of almost anything crowds out other things. This is the “Crowding out” idea in the AAP’s 2026 guidance.
Refuge. A teen already struggling, anxious or isolated may retreat into games because it’s the easiest place to be. In that case the heavy gaming is a sign of the difficulty, not its source. The study measured both at the same time at 15, so it can’t tell which came first.
Both can be true for different kids. And note what didn’t stand out: moderate gaming, TV and social media at typical levels. The authors also found no clear dose-response pattern, meaning difficulties didn’t rise steadily with each extra hour. That suggests a threshold effect at the extreme, or too few kids at the very high end to see a smooth trend.
For more on how gaming affects thinking and learning, see our review of video games and cognitive development, and our explainer on gaming disorder, real vs. panic.
What the Study Can and Can’t Tell You
| Question | What the study shows | How confident to be |
|---|---|---|
| Is typical screen use at 5 or 10 linked to emotional or behavioral problems? | No significant link after adjusting for family functioning | Moderate: large cohort, good adjustment, parent-reported |
| Is very heavy gaming at 15 a warning sign? | Yes, 2.6Ă— odds of above-average difficulties | Moderate: survived multiple-testing correction, but cross-sectional |
| Does heavy use at 5 cause problems at 10? | Linked at 10, gone by 15, not consistent | Low |
| Is moderate social media protective at 15? | Lower odds at 1–2 hours a day | Low: authors warn against that reading |
| Does content matter? | Not measured | Unknown from this study |
| Does this apply to kids today? | Data end in 2020 | Partial: TikTok-era habits weren’t captured |
Two more limits worth knowing. The cohort was predominantly White, and families who dropped out were more often single-parent, lower-income or more deprived, which narrows how far the results generalize. And the same parents often reported both screen use and difficulties, which can blur the picture.
This fits a wider pattern. A September 2026 umbrella review in JAMA Pediatrics pooled 23 meta-analyses covering more than 2.8 million children and found links between screens and emotional problems that were real but small on average, such as a correlation of about 0.10 for internalizing problems like anxiety and low mood. Small averages, with extremes and context doing most of the work: the Scottish data say much the same.
What to Do With This at Home
Stop counting ordinary hours so anxiously
For younger kids especially, this study adds to the evidence that a typical amount of screen use, in a functioning family, isn’t the thing to lose sleep over. Spend that energy on what the screen time is and what it’s replacing.
Watch the extremes, not the averages
Five-plus hours of gaming a day is the line this study flagged. If your teen is near it, that’s worth attention, starting with curiosity, not confiscation.
Ask what the gaming is doing for them
Is it social, with friends on voice chat? Is it an escape from something at school? Is it keeping them up past midnight? The answer tells you whether you’re dealing with a sleep problem, a friendship problem or a mood problem.
Protect the non-negotiables
Sleep, school, some movement, some in-person time. If those are intact, heavy gaming on a Saturday is a different situation from heavy gaming every school night.
What not to do
Don’t read the social-media finding as permission to give a 12-year-old unlimited access. The authors themselves said it isn’t protective, and other studies point the other way. And don’t assume a struggling teen’s gaming is the cause; it might be where they go to cope.
What to Watch For Over the Next 3 Months
- Week 4: Roughly how many hours a day does your 13-to-15-year-old game on school days? If you don’t know, ask them to show you their console or phone’s own usage stats together.
- Month 2 red flags: Gaming that pushes bedtime past midnight on school nights, dropped grades, losing interest in friends outside the game, or intense distress when asked to stop.
- Month 3 self-check: Do you know why your teen games: friends, competition, escape, boredom? If heavy gaming comes with withdrawal, low mood or sleep loss, talk to your pediatrician.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Growing Up in Scotland study find about screen time?
After adjusting for family functioning, it found no significant link between screen use and above-average emotional or behavioral difficulties at ages 5 and 10. At 15, gaming more than five hours a day was linked to 2.6 times the odds of above-average difficulties. The authors say screen-time-only guidelines may have limited impact.
Is gaming bad for teenagers?
Not at ordinary levels, according to this study. Only very heavy gaming, more than five hours a day, stood out at age 15. Even then, the study can’t say whether gaming caused the difficulties or whether struggling teens turned to gaming. Sleep, schoolwork and in-person friendships are the things to protect.
Why does this study differ from ones that find screen harms?
Partly because it adjusted for family functioning and followed the same children over time. Many earlier studies measured screens and well-being at one moment without accounting for family stress. The overall evidence still suggests small average effects, with extremes and content mattering most.
Does this mean young children can have unlimited screen time?
No. The study found no link to difficulties at typical levels, but very heavy use at 5 was linked to more difficulties at 10 in one analysis. It didn’t measure content or language development. Other research links heavy use in toddlers to weaker language, so moderation and good content still matter.
Is the data out of date?
Partly. The last wave was collected in 2019–20, and some of today’s most popular apps launched late in that period. The authors acknowledge this. The findings about extreme gaming and family context are still useful, but they can’t speak to short-video feeds or AI chatbots.
About the author
Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.
Sources
- McQuaid, F., Skafida, V., McQuillan, R., & Lee, B. (2026). “Screen Use and Emotional, Behavioral, and Social Development in Children.” JAMA Network Open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.26804
- Thomas, L. (2026, August 24). “Researchers followed children for a decade to see whether screen time really mattered.” News-Medical. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20260824/Researchers-followed-children-for-a-decade-to-see-whether-screen-time-really-mattered.aspx
- Al-Jbouri, E., Nivison, M., Neville, R., et al. (2026). “Screen Use and Child and Adolescent Development and Mental Health Outcomes: A Quantitative Umbrella Review.” JAMA Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2026.4339
- American Academy of Pediatrics. (2026). “Kids and Screen Time: How to Use the 5 C’s of Media Guidance.” HealthyChildren.org. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/Media/Pages/kids-and-screen-time-how-to-use-the-5-cs-of-media-guidance.aspx
- Munzer, T., Parga-Belinkie, J., et al. (2026). “Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents: Policy Statement.” Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2025-075320
